This shows a positive trend for Google: revenues per smartphone per year is increasing. However, the growth is coming from non-Android devices which means mostly iOS. Revenues per device for Android is probably declining.

The story for iOS revenues however is not all rosy for Google. Google has to pay for that revenue. The mechanism is a payment that Google makes to Apple for the prominent and default placement of Google search on Safari.

He really gets into the numbers, and he says that Android's mobile advertising growth will continue. I believe current estimates show a doubling of mobile advertising dollars this year, the lion's share going to Google.

This is a long game folks, it going to take 2-3 years to see where mobile advertising rates go before Android can be declared a business failure.

If anything, Asymco's analysis is more pessimistic than my own. Revenue per Android device per year flat at $1.70 with Android already at ~50% share of the smartphone market and smartphone share in the developed world approaching 50%? There's no reason to believe that the remaining smartphone holdouts are going to be more profitable than early adopters in wealthy countries. So if revenue per device doesn't increase, I think you can go ahead and call Android a failure. And there's plenty of reasons why revenue per device could actually decrease going forward with the likes of Amazon siphoning even more profits from Google's ecosystem.

btw, I've seen that Android skews to middle america and Apple skews to the urban coastal areas, another potential source of bias in collecting 'tablet sightings'. I think that has more to do with average income than any cultural thing, btw.

I would definitely believe that. I'm certainly aware NYC does not equal the U.S., let alone the world.

That said, I see a *lot* of Android phones in NYC. Roughly about half or more of all smartphones on the subway, a nice place for device-watching as the population often cuts across various income levels (though lately the sheer # of iPhones lately is becoming almost a little ridiculous). The lack of non-Fire Android tablets is just... striking. And that includes airports as well, so it's not *just* NYC.

I'm sure that will change to some degree going forward, but right now, I don't know where Android tablets are going, but I just don't see them.

But you aren't taking into account the fact that mobile advertising is a growing industry, projected to double YoY for the next few years.

You're closing the book when there are still unread chapters left. Please note that I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's to early to say either way.

Didn't mobile advertising grow YoY from 2008 to 2011? I'm simply assuming that the rate of growth won't be any faster than it was over the last 4 years.

I can respect that.

But yeah, either way Android is absolutely in the red. Just saying it isn't hopeless for them to have Android turn a profit yet. Although the numbers aren't in it's favor, Google launching Android was absolutely necessary to stave off the threat Mocrosoft posed in mobile.

Why Google has had this weird obsession with Apple, that I don't really get. I still scratch my head over that Vic Gundotra presentation at I/O in 2010.

Microsoft, too. The iPhone is like a razor in their eye, when it's Android that, IMV, poses the deeper and more existential threat. (Not that Apple's rise isn't an increasingly deep threat, just that Android took *their* model, with a twist, giving it away for free. Just deadly.)

I think it's because of the iPhone's status as an icon... it's an easier target to focus on. Plus the way Apple siphons most the profit out of an industry. If that wouldn't induce loathing from competitors, I don't know what would.

(though lately the sheer # of iPhones lately is becoming almost a little ridiculous).

White ones. It is bizarre. All of a sudden they are everywhere. It's like the white headphones, round II.

Quote:

The lack of non-Fire Android tablets is just... striking. And that includes airports as well, so it's not *just* NYC.

Honestly I am not sure I have ever seen one. And the Fire? A few. Kindles are everywhere. iPads are also everywhere, although not nearly in the volume that the Kindle is, and as for anything else...crickets and tumbleweeds.

You know what my favorite part of this whole "Android only make 25% ($550mil) from Android" stuff? That people are using Google's numbers--from them saying how much they made from Android in a LAWSUIT. Has anyone actually considered that Google is playing nice accounting games here and coming up with a number as low as defensible so as to minimize potential damages should they lose to Oracle?

You know what my favorite part of this whole "Android only make 25% ($550mil) from Android" stuff? That people are using Google's numbers--from them saying how much they made from Android in a LAWSUIT. Has anyone actually considered that Google is playing nice accounting games here and coming up with a number as low as defensible so as to minimize potential damages should they lose to Oracle?

Because contempt of court is always fun.

Never mind the SEC violations to go with it. They have only so much room to play with it.

I don't know that his point of view is all that interesting. He doesn't have a need for a tablet due to his use of a smartphone and a laptop, and since he's a writer that seems like a completely reasonable stance.

Here's an interesting point of view. At least one writer claims that he (and some of his buddies) aren't all that enamored of the tablet revolution.

I don't know what to make of it. It seems to me a little retrograde to the point of disingenuousness. I'm an old fogey and I can see that tablets have their place.

But, maybe, along with some of what I've suggested about the Post PC world, not everyone will want every device.

It does suggest, contrary to some of my thinking, that there isn't infinite room for form factors even though they are (by historical standards at least) fairly cheap.

Wonder what will happen to this guy in a year or two?

We're moving from a discrete set of devices (phones over here, computers over there) to a continuum (phones, gradually growing in size until they get called tablets, eventually morphing into laptops). Once we hit that continuum, it's reasonable to imagine that people will pick and choose based on their own specific preferences. It doesn't really make sense to expect any given person to own a 1" wrist device, a 3.5" pocket device, a 5" big pocket device, a 7" small tablet, a 10" big tablet, a 13" notebook, and a 25" desktop-ish device.

btw, I've seen that Android skews to middle america and Apple skews to the urban coastal areas, another potential source of bias in collecting 'tablet sightings'. I think that has more to do with average income than any cultural thing, btw.

I would definitely believe that. I'm certainly aware NYC does not equal the U.S., let alone the world.

That said, I see a *lot* of Android phones in NYC. Roughly about half or more of all smartphones on the subway, a nice place for device-watching as the population often cuts across various income levels (though lately the sheer # of iPhones lately is becoming almost a little ridiculous). The lack of non-Fire Android tablets is just... striking. And that includes airports as well, so it's not *just* NYC.

While we're swapping anecdotes...

A place I regularly find myself, that is good for device-watching, is the common or garden motorway service station.

In the UK, mid-week, a large proportion of the visitors to these places are business travellers. I see a lot of Apple phones, a decreasing (but still large) number of BlackBerry devices, and the rest (i.e. about two thirds) is pretty much assorted Android, with the odd nutter like me with a blue Lumia, and the retro holdouts, and so on.

I live in a nice area of and work downtown in S.F., so obviously my visual sightings cannot be trusted vs the world (since on S.F. Muni iPhones outnumber Android 2 to 1)...

... but I NEVER see non-iPads other than the recently occasional recently. Ever.

Meanwhile there is a penetration of about 50% of iPads by lawyers at the office I work at, all bought and brought in by the employee to do work off of (in addition to play at home I'm sure). Ditto 50% penetration by lawyers at 2 other firms I've done work at.

I understand SF and rich lawyers are a terrible proxy for the world, but seriously where are all these non-iPad tablets?

You know what my favorite part of this whole "Android only make 25% ($550mil) from Android" stuff? That people are using Google's numbers--from them saying how much they made from Android in a LAWSUIT. Has anyone actually considered that Google is playing nice accounting games here and coming up with a number as low as defensible so as to minimize potential damages should they lose to Oracle?

Yeah... California Penal Code, section 118, subdivision (a):"Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made orsubscribed within or without the State of California."

And Penal Code section 126:"Perjury is punishable by imprisonment ... for two, three or four years."

You think the folks at Google want to go to prison for two to four years?

Ahh--my first post about it--and it is in response to gypsum. Just like I said. So nice try on the troll card. Unfortunately it just made you look like a dumb-ass instead.

No, in any reading of what you've written, and even taking into account your somewhat simpleton version of the English language, you were replying to me. Now it's clear for all to see that you're not just a common little troll, you're also an ugly liar.

You know what my favorite part of this whole "Android only make 25% ($550mil) from Android" stuff? That people are using Google's numbers--from them saying how much they made from Android in a LAWSUIT. Has anyone actually considered that Google is playing nice accounting games here and coming up with a number as low as defensible so as to minimize potential damages should they lose to Oracle?

Because contempt of court is always fun.

Never mind the SEC violations to go with it. They have only so much room to play with it.

And do you think they worked as hard as they could to get the number as high as possible or as low as possible?

So EH2's saying we can't trust Google's word in sworn testimony at risk of contempt of court and we should trust all the other numbers they put out?

No, I am saying that when they came up with that number, they could work to make that number look as high as possible or as low as posssible. Which do you think it was when damages are on the line.

Now maybe the difference of those two numbers is say 10mil (550mil vs 560mil), or maybe it is a few hundred mil. or more. A lot of it has to do with how things are catorgorized. "Oh no--we didn't make that money from ANDROID--we got it from mobile browsing" (I don't know how you could spin, but there are ALWAYS ways to spin things). App revenue would be hard to BS. Advertising from withing Android Aps--same thing. Ads that happened to just go to a browswer that is on an Android phone--maybe not. There would be nothing inherant in Android that would cause that revenue, so they could say that it was specifically due to Android, so doesn't count. etc.

You know what my favorite part of this whole "Android only make 25% ($550mil) from Android" stuff? That people are using Google's numbers--from them saying how much they made from Android in a LAWSUIT. Has anyone actually considered that Google is playing nice accounting games here and coming up with a number as low as defensible so as to minimize potential damages should they lose to Oracle?

Yeah... California Penal Code, section 118, subdivision (a):"Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made orsubscribed within or without the State of California."

And Penal Code section 126:"Perjury is punishable by imprisonment ... for two, three or four years."

You think the folks at Google want to go to prison for two to four years?

So you actually truly believe that thsi number would be the exact same if they weren't being sued? really? That is rather naive.

Ahh--my first post about it--and it is in response to gypsum. Just like I said. So nice try on the troll card. Unfortunately it just made you look like a dumb-ass instead.

No, in any reading of what you've written, and even taking into account your somewhat simpleton version of the English language, you were replying to me. Now it's clear for all to see that you're not just a common little troll, you're also an ugly liar.

Yes, it's OK, we understand that Android activations per day became an invalid metric the moment it exceeded Apple's activations per day. Long live the RDF!

No, it's just a meaningless metric (like PSBench7). So far it has not translated into revenue share, stopped fragmentation, garnered developer interest, etc.

LOL. Android has a huge portion of revenue share. Almost assuredly higher than iPhones revenue share.

And I know you have been preaching fragmentation for a year or two now and it has YET to be a problem. I guess fragmentation is Androids "antennagate". BTW--what some might call fragmentation, others might call diversification--which is a good thing.

I'm sure that all that revenue is a massive consolation to the companies that aren't Apple, fighting over the 25% of profits that Apple aren't taking.

Thanks for the link. proves me right.

Quote:

In terms of revenues, Apple had 39% to Samsung’s 25%. Third was Nokia with 12.6% and fourth RIM at 8%. HTC only managed 5.5%, Motorola 4%, LG 3.3% and Sony Ericsson 2.7%.

RIM + Nokia is 21%, and Apple is 39%, which means that if we assume that every other vendor got all of their revenue from Android, Android revenue would be 40%. Or only a hair higher than Apple. Since we know that Samsung et al. do sell a fair number of feature-phones etc, your claim of "proves me right" is questionable at best. Android is comparable to iPhone, certainly, but 'almost assuredly higher' is a reach.

Yes, it's OK, we understand that Android activations per day became an invalid metric the moment it exceeded Apple's activations per day. Long live the RDF!

I don't recall activations per day being one of the metric Apple talked about before Android. IIRC even now they talk about total units shipped. Now that I think about it, no one but Google talks about activations per day. Everyone out side of Google and MS ship phones so they talk about the number of phones they ship.

Just because Google decided that activations per day is important doesn't make it so. Samsung like Apple I assume cares a lot more about the number of phones they ship. FYI Apple's real competition is Samsung and etc.

I don't recall activations per day being one of the metric Apple talked about before Android. IIRC even now they talk about total units shipped. Now that I think about it, no one but Google talks about activations per day. Everyone out side of Google and MS ship phones so they talk about the number of phones they ship.

Just because Google decided that activations per day is important doesn't make it so. Samsung like Apple I assume cares a lot more about the number of phones they ship. FYI Apple's real competition is Samsung and etc.

Google uses activations per day because it is what they are able to measure. They aren't the retailer, or the manufacturer, who have the sales figures; now Google probably have a good estimate as to how many phones are shipping and being sold, but it won't be a precise as the activations which are unique and one-time only.

Google uses activations per day because it is what they are able to measure. They aren't the retailer, or the manufacturer, who have the sales figures; now Google probably have a good estimate as to how many phones are shipping and being sold, but it won't be a precise as the activations which are unique and one-time only.

They know developer payout on the Android Market. Why don't they release that?

but it won't be a precise as the activations which are unique and one-time only.

And who's word are we taking on this? I mean how do we *really* know? And even if it were the case, why bother counting "activations" unless you're going to count "deactivations" as well? At least it would be a little less deceiving.

And who's word are we taking on this? I mean how do we *really* know? And even if it were the case, why bother counting "activations" unless you're going to count "deactivations" as well? At least it would be a little less deceiving.

This is an idiotic argument. Apple talks about the total sum of iOS devices sold; does it talk about how many people are *still* using iOS devices, or how many unique iOS users there are? No. Either they don't know, or choose to focus on the larger number.

And we know because it's not only obvious (use your eyes, and look at the sheer number of Android phones out there in use), but because Google reports new activation #s on conference calls, where they are legally bound to the facts they state.

Wait, something is "activated", and then ... What? The total number of GSM activated devices grows forever in number without any way to detect drop off? I don't buy it, and that's why the "activations" that are thrown around seem wildly inaccurate, or at the least questionable.

Wait, something is "activated", and then ... What? The total number of GSM activated devices grows forever in number without any way to detect drop off?

why not? When a handset can just disappear from the network by pulling the SIM, how do you "deactivate" such a device? It's not like CDMA where the carrier is in total control over what phones are on the network.

You could probably do some datamining on the IMEIs to estimate the lifespan of a given handset, but I can't believe it's straightforward.

Quote:

I don't buy it, and that's why the "activations" that are thrown around seem wildly inaccurate, or at the least questionable.

Activations are at least trackable, for whatever numbers Google counts as an "activation." Depending on how they count the number could be low, or it could be high, and still be valid.